Talk:African Americans/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(Moved from Users Talk page)Stop trying to describe African Americans as ONLY descendents from slaves, it is not backed up by majority of sourcing and is not the consensus on the Talk page. If you wish to tweak the wording, seek consensus on the Talk page. But your 'all or nothing' approach is disruptive. Dave Dial (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Edited to reflect this was moved from the Middayexpress Talk page, the edit was to caution the user to stop slow edit warring on this article. Dave Dial (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

DD2K, please stop reverting and use the talk page. If you had, you would have already been aware that RightCowLeftCoast proposed a new compromise wording yesterday (not me), which I accepted provided that it was slightly modified for simplicity and redundancy. RightCowLeftCoast said that he was OK with either phrase (post above dated 22:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)), so I added the new compromising wording today with the discussed Soberon reference. What are your objections if any to the new compromise phrasing that RightCowLeftCoast initially proposed? If you are unwilling or unable to articulate them, there is no reason why the old wording should remain for the second sentence. Also, please see Brigade Piron's post above. Middayexpress (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I mostly agree with RCLC, but your change in wording and 'agreement' isn't an automatic WP:CONSENSUS. He also suggested an RfC. The wording stating:

The term may also be used to include only those individuals who are descended from African slaves.

is superior to

According to various sources, the term is exclusive to the descendants of African slaves.

You made the change after the wording was already change to compromise with you. Dave Dial (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not the compromise wording that RightCowLeftCoast suggested. He wrote: "Rather than using "sometimes" how about "Several sources specify that the term African-American is exclusive to an ethnicity of those who in whole or in part can trace their ancestry to those who arrived in what is now the United States by the Atlantic slave trade"?" I then suggested a slight modification of that for simplicity and to correct for redundancy vis-a-vis the first sentence (viz. "According to various sources, the term is exclusive to the descendants of African slaves, who form a distinct ethnic group"), to which he wrote that he was okay with either phrase. That said, please see my response above under second lead sentence. Middayexpress (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I am OK with either phrase, but as I stated the phrase that should be used in the article is the one that has received consensus, if there is not consensus for either phrase, than we should discuss the possible language here rather than engaging in a slow moving contentious editing in the article. Now, again, I am OK with either phrase. So perhaps the best would be to take a straw poll, and see what language has the most consensus/support, and then move forward from there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll

Straw poll result evaluation

• Option 1 - 3 oppose, 2 support = -1
• Option 2 - 1 oppose, 1 weak support, 3 support = 2.5
• Option 3 - 3 oppose, 1 support = -2
• Option 4 - 2 oppose, 1 weak oppose, 2 support = -0.5
• Option 5 - 5 oppose = -5
• Option 6 - 1 oppose, 1 weak oppose, 1 weak support, 3 support = 2
• Option 7 - 3 oppose, 2 support = -1

From the straw poll it appears that Option 2 has the most support of editors who chose to make their opinions known in the straw poll. Please comment below.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments regarding straw poll results

• Comment - Option 2 had one more supporter than Option 6, hardly a consensus. As pointed out in the comments above, the consensus policy likewise stipulates that "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)". While nonetheless an interesting exercise, the count also conflicts with the Asian American page, which was mentioned above as an example to follow. The latter page defines its population as narrowly as possible (although no native "Asian American" population exists), while a number of the options above attempted the opposite here (although a native "African American" population already exists). Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Has there been a discussion about this article's name? There are a number of reasons that "Black American" would be more suitable:

A) Most Black Americans prefer the title "Black American" over "African American" - that's according to scientific polling, not me just saying it. B) The corresponding article for White Americans is titled "White American" instead of "European American" C) The vast majority of Black Americans have no African ancestors going back many generations. The slave trade ended in 1808, and consequently very few Africans came to the United States after 1808. D) The term "African American" is somewhat inaccurate when describing black Americans who originate in some other place (e.g. Haiti, Brazil, etc.) Note that white South Africans who come to America are South African Americans, it would be a little bit odd to call them "European Americans" if their ancestors hadn't lived in Europe for centuries.

Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the name officially used in America by every source on the planet for these so-called black people is African American. South Africa is a name of a country it does not mean South + African (race). Sometimes it is shocking the types of proposals people put forward. How do you know what "Most Black Americans" prefer? Please go to the Italian Americans, Irish American, Greek Americans, and my fav Jewish Americans and rename those pages. And last time I checked Haitian come from the same place the African Americans come from AFRIKA!--Inayity (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean to "shock" you with this question. I challenge your claim that every source on the planet uses the term African American. In a 2011 Wall Street Journal/NBC poll (don't even try telling me it's biased), 42% of respondents said they preferred to be called "black," compared to 35% who preferred "African American." And as for your suggestion, the difference is that there is no interchangeable alternative for ethnicities such as Italian, Irish, Greek, and Jewish. In those cases, there is one accepted name. Please don't get offended. I'm just making a suggestion. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You know it is hard to separate who one is from ones edits at times like these. as a person who is African Diaspora when someone suggest we go from Black to Negro, or from African American back to black, it is not a step in the right direction. And I am not sure why Africans have their identities in constant challenge. Wall street journal is an authentic monitor of African issues? Come on, it is beyond bias it is a total non-representative source. (but I do not need to go into that). Sometimes when you live these identities you understand the issues differently. And it shows the issues of so-called RS on Wikipedia. And we had this discussion on San people, RS was used to call them Bushmen. Now we can use our brains and know that bushmen is offensive. But Harvard and WP used it! Just like BBC uses BLACK AFRICANS, despite many grassroots org opposing it. At one stage Native Americans were called Red Indians-- It changed. Eskimo are now Innuit, Bushmen are now San and Khoisan. African Americans, unlike Jews and Irish have identity issues due to the Maafa, there is an ongoing struggle with identity and a re-connection to Africa. People are not in our communities going towards blackness, they are moving towards Africaness as the legacy of slavery is undone. And there is absolutely no bases to rename African American (original origin + Nationality) argued by Maulana Karenga, Alik Shahadah, Malcolm X, and Jesse Jackson all of this is mentioned in the article further ref see Gallup poll, and formal/in-formal names--Inayity (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that the Wall Street Journal was not commenting on African issues, it merely conducted a poll of black/African Americans so bias really is a non-issue (unless you wish to suggest that the random sample of black/African Americans polled were biased). I also think it's hard to say that the word black is offensive when most people aren't offended by it (after all, there is literally NO way to gauge what is offensive other than societal perceptions). All of the people you listed are black/African American social justice advocates. They don't necessarily represent mainstream views. There is no reason to suggest "black American" is any more backwards than "white American." I stand by my case, but this isn't a very important issue to me, so I'm not going to be spending any more time on this. Regards, Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"African American" is indeed the common name for the actual African American ethnic group. However, this page was always about the latter native American ethnic group, not recent immigrants from elsewhere. "African American" is thus the appropriate page name for it. Middayexpress (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Who better to speak about African identity than those people? Why not use the Gallop poll? And you keep going on about White Americans, talk about Italian Americans and their connected to Italian culture if you need a comparison. And the issue is very important to me and I am not casually commenting using surface logic. A little deeper study will reveal why black weaker than African and why Holidays like Kwanzaa exist. --Inayity (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, there is no one oblivious enough to change the name of this article. Or have it stay changed at least. Wikipedia is currently under siege, I'm not sure if this is one of the articles that is targeted, but our core policies prevent a siege from being successful. Most of the time. Dave Dial (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: WP:Common name is policy, and the article should stay titled African American because of that policy. If anyone wants this article moved to a different name, then start a WP:Requested move discussion, and see how well that goes. Flyer22 (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The policy WP:COMMONNAME appears to dictate, that as while historically Negro (United Negro College Fund), Colored {National Associate of Colored People) and Black (National Alliance of Black School Educators) have all been used and were previously the common term used in reliable sources in regards to the subject, the most common name in modern usage for the subject of this article is African American. Therefore, I oppose a move, if this is what is being proposed/requested. That being said, to the editor who is proposing/requesting move may I suggest creation of redirect pages to this article per WP:POFRED.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Those organizations were all established by and for actual African Americans long before any significant immigration from elsewhere, so they're not particularly relevant. Middayexpress (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent immigrant status, or connection to ancestry to individuals forcibly brought to North America by the Atlantic Slave Trade, is not the primary focus of what being discussed in this section. Please keep the discussion about the definition of the subject to the appropriate section already established, as not to muddy the topic of conversation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What is actually off-topic are those allusions to said historic organizations. It's also ironic since the government traditionally used different designations for Africa's various populations (e.g. "Hamitic" vs. "Negro" [1] [2]). Middayexpress (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed sub-saharan African to black African in the definition. My definition conforms to the US Census source. I also added East African and North African to the types of Africans that may fall into African American (if they are Americans who identify and are perceived to be black; contrary to popular misconception, some (though not most) North Africans--such as Nubians--are identified as black).

Last time I made these changes, I was assailed with a series of straw person arguments. Please note that I realize "black" is not a biologically sound concept; it is a social concept. Please also note that I realize that the "original" African AMericans (the descendents of slaves) actually do constitute a biologially relevant population, even if the concept "black Africa" as a whole is nonsense biologically speaking. However (though the lede acknowledges that some do not consider those who are not descended from slaves to be AA) the social definition of AA=1)American of 2) black and 3) African descent. Thus, all Africans who identify/are perceived to be black (including Barack Obama, who did not descend from slaves) can be included as African Americans. Steeletrap (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the editorializing. Nubians aren't African American, regardless of whether they emigrated from Sudan or a few miles north in Egypt, just as Haratin emigrants from the Maghreb aren't African American. "African American" is first and foremost an actual ethnic group historically formed in the United States, with its own distinct history, culture, language, names, genealogy and genetics. This population traces the Africa-derived portion of its ancestry to West/Central Africa, not the entire continent. The term replaced earlier terms for the same American ethnic group and was meant to simply indicate that the enslaved and indentured servant ancestors of African Americans originally hailed from Africa, but that it was uncertain from which exact ethnic groups [3]. In the real world, this is the common meaning of "African American" (e.g. [4]). However, this ethnic group's traditional ethnonym has also more recently been used by the census bureau as a non-standard racial label synonymous with "Negro". This is where the confusion stems from. The census bureau is well aware of this since the OMB subsequently devised a separate "African American" ethnic group entry on par with "Haitian, Nigerian, and so on". Why did it do that? Specifically because many African and Caribbean respondents didn't identify as "African American". Consequently, they figured that the "Black, African Am., or Negro" box wasn't aimed at them, so they instead responded by writing their own actual ethnicity under "Some Other Race". The bureau indicates that entire immigrant ethnic groups did this, not merely an invidual here or there. Had it been only a handful of people, the census bureau obviously wouldn't have felt it necessary to make an additional, separate "African American" ethnic group entry for actual African Americans [5]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not editorializing. Your definition is editorializing by trying to make a social category a biological one. Your definition of AA--as West/Central African rather than black African--excludes Barack Obama and is out of the mainstream. The lede pays homage to your arguments by stating that some scholars argue for a restrictive definition of AA, as referring to descendents of slaves. Please stop inserting your OR.Steeletrap (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC) The two cited definitions for AA are Americans descending from 1) "any of the black racial groups of Africa" or those who 2) "are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa." Steeletrap (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed editorializing. You also already had the opportunity to participate in the lengthy discussion above on the first two sentences, but didn't. What you describe as my "OR" was actually wording suggested by someone else therein [6]. Given this, I've again removed that belated editorializing. Middayexpress (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's re-open the straw vote. We need more comments, votes, and discussion. Steeletrap (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not the way it works; see WP:STRAW. Middayexpress (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Americans of African descent who are perceived and identify as black (such as Nubian Americans) are African American for all intents and purposes, even if they are of North African rather than sub-Saharan African descent. I recognize that "black" is a nonsense concept biologically, and also vague sociologically. But nonetheless, the definition of African American is grounded in the concept of blackness. As the cited sources indicate, the term means black+African+American. Sub-Saharan African is under-inclusive; it should be changed to the RS supported "American of black African descent." We can note in the lede that "black African" is not a biologically sound concept, but merely a social concept. But there is no excuse for OR and violating the plain language of RS; nor is there any excuse for a definition of AA that leaves out people who identify and are perceived to be AA. (I agree with User:Middayexpress that we should also prominently take note of the more biologically sensible definition of AA: namely, a person who descended partially or fully from African slaves in America.) Steeletrap (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I really think we're misunderstanding each other here. Your arguments regarding biology/genealogy are clearly sound. However, African American is a social rather than biological concept. The fact is that Nubian Americans are Africans, Americans, and are perceived as "black." Therefore, they are African Americans in the relevant (social) sense, even if they do not share common "racial" ancestry with most African Americans.

To clarify the issue further, perhaps you could add an additional source to the lede expanding on the (more genealogically rigorous) definition you favor. Clearly, the concept of "blackness" is intrinsically vague and nonsense biologically. You can note that in the lede. But the social definition (as black African) is the dominant one in the United States, irrespective of its biological merit. Steeletrap (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This was just explained above. "African American" as a broad synonym for "Black/Negro" is certainly not the traditional meaning of the term. "African American" first and foremost refers to an actual ethnic group of native Americans, whose members trace the Africa-derived portion of their ancestry to slaves or indentured servants from West/Central Africa. They share a common and distinct history, culture, language, names, genealogy and genetics, which were historically formed in the New World. Folks like Oprah Winfrey, not Nubians and other recent African immigrants to the United States. "African American" is Winfrey's ethnic group, while "Nubian" is a Nubian immigrant's ethnic group. The census bureau is well aware of all this, so it has now established a separate "African American" ethnic group write-in entry aimed at actual African Americans ("a combined race/ethnicity question would best reflect the self-reporting preferences of the diverse African-American, African, Afro-Caribbean in the United States[...] A combined-format question that includes a write in line for all race groups raises the rate of detailed ethnic reporting among respondents of African descent enormously[...] This is a finding in their favor, which may help address concerns among specific populations (e.g. people of Caribbean origin, or recent African immigrants) about being able to express an identity, which is different than African-American" [7]). Middayexpress (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I see this debate may have started again and an editor has placed edits in a closed straw poll, designed to establish consensus. There was a weak consensus for using the inclusive definition in option 2 above, and the next most supported option had an inclusive (but less so than option 6) definition. The next step, to determining if consensus has changed, is to open up a request for comment, to bring a wider range of editors in to help establish consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Funny, I didn't even notice until just now that he/she slipped in some responses into the closed straw poll. It doesn't really matter, though, as the timestamps are set and that is not how the system works. At any rate, what is certain is that the census bureau itself is well aware that recent immigrants to the United States aren't African Americans nor do they in general regard themselves as such. For one thing, it estimates that over 75% of African Americans have multiracial ancestries. The bureau has therefore devised a separate write-in entry exclusively aimed at actual African Americans. It was previously claimed that that census bureau definition is that which defines the scope of this article (not quite true, as the census is ultimately based on self-designation; per the bureau, many ethnic groups choose instead Some Other Race), so this is key. In the real world, "African American" is similarly reserved for actual African Americans like Oprah Winfrey and Beyonce, not recent immigrants from elsewhere. Denying the reality of Winfrey and Beyonce's African American ethnic group – the one that unites them historically, culturally, linguistically, genealogically and genetically with other actual African Americans, who have a shared heritage and experience – to try and include recent and often completely unrelated immigrants only results in Winfrey and Beyonce no longer having any ethnic group at all. On the other hand, an immigrant and his or her descendants (like pretty much all other U.S. residents) will always have an ethnic group of his or her own, irrespective of any attempted social engineering. Middayexpress (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The exclusion of more recent African immigrants, from African Americans, and the insistence of it by some editors, and some reliable sources rings of nativism. Reliable sources have been found to support both exclusionary and inclusive definitions of the subject of this article, and consensus supported the usage of the inclusive definition. Therefore, I suggest that WP:DEADHORSE applies, unless a RFC is opened to show that consensus has changed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

With respect, that is absurd. First, I didn't start this discussion, so there's no point in linking to that essay. Second, Option 2 had one more supporter than Option 6, which is hardly a consensus, nor do straw polls establish consensus in the first place per the actual consensus policy. Third, if I had intended to change the lede sentences, I would already have done so long ago given the foregoing. Fourth, as you yourself admitted, the "inclusive" definition was defined by the census bureau. Yet that same census bureau in its latest paper by its National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations clearly recommends that "a combined race/ethnicity question would best reflect the self-reporting preferences of the diverse African-American, African, Afro-Caribbean in the United States[...] a combined-format question that includes a write in line for all race groups raises the rate of detailed ethnic reporting among respondents of African descent enormously[...] this is a finding in their favor, which may help address concerns among specific populations (e.g. people of Caribbean origin, or recent African immigrants) about being able to express an identity, which is different than African-American"" [8]. Thus, the real world, immigrants themselves, and now the census bureau itself all acknowledge the reality of the actual African American ethnic group, separate from recent immigrants. It's difficult not to when the history, culture, language, genealogy and genetics of actual, multiracial African Americans are all different. I just wanted to set the record straight on this matter, for posterity. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

An interesting read, a reliable source, that is at times inclusive and exclusive.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That opinion piece dates from 2010, almost a half decade before the census paper above. Turns out that the author was also mistaken about the direction that the census bureau is actually moving in: after much lobbying by community advocacy groups, the bureau has chosen to respect immigrants' actual respective ethnicities instead of trying in vain to force false new identities upon them [9]. Middayexpress (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean a fourth row can be helpful. I mean you're missing some other notable African-Americans. It can include Edward Brooke (first black US senator), Morgan Freeman (notable African-American actor), Sidney Poitier (first African-American actor to win Oscar), and Sojourner Truth (notable former African-American slave, major slave female model). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Slight correction; Sidney Poitier is of Bahamian ancestry, not African American origin. Hattie McDaniel was actually the first African American to win an Oscar. Middayexpress (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I've found more than a few sources, including peer reviewed scholarly ones, that identify Sidney Poitier as an African American.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. However, Poitier is more often identified as Bahamian since the Bahamas is where he actually traces his origin to. McDaniel, on the other hand, is always identified as African American because that is what her actual ancestors were. That said, as one of the Afro-American peoples of the Americas, Poitier is nonetheless certainly closely related to McDaniel and other actual African Americans. Middayexpress (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

But overall a fourth image row is needed. I feel that perhaps Hattie McDaniel should be added so we have a fair amount of males and females. So Brooke, Freeman, Daniel, and Truth. Are they okay? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that works fine. Middayexpress (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Both sources cited in the first sentence of the article, which defines AA, say AA=black African. Yet for some reason we have ignored the RS and presented, in Wikipedia's voice, the claim that African Americans are only sub-saharan Africans. This definition not only defies RS, but sociological reality. Some North African ethnic groups are perceived to be 'black' in the US. Thus, they are African American. Nubian Americans--though certainly not Egyptians generally--are a good example of this.

The argument that AA only refers to descendants of slaves is quite reasonable. Indeed, it's more reasonable--from a genetic and cultural perspective--than the RS definition. (Obviously, from a biological perspective, the notion of a 'black race' is preposterous and even offensive.) But we must defer to RS definitions, which, by the way, reflect social convention more than the 'descendants of African slaves' definition does. ×The alternative definition should be given prominent emphasis in the lede. But it cannot be presented as accepted fact. Nor should the SSA definition be presented as fact. Steeletrap (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Owing to mixed racial ancestry, a minority of African-Americans look more Caucasian than black. (See passing for some historical context on this phenomenon.) Adding a picture of such an individual would, in my view, more effectively reflect the diversity of the community. This is a sensitive subject and I understand if editors would prefer not to have someone with 'white' features. So, while I am not going to add the picture myself, I am putting the idea out there. Rashida Jones, Mariah Carey, and Soledad O'Brien would all be good candidates for such a picture. Steeletrap (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure you are aware but people in Africa are not called black racial groups, they are called Africans. The vast majority of people are called African. In places visited by apartheid and heavy colonialism like South Africa BLACK is used for Africans (aka the natives), Indians and now Chinese. Black is not a race. As to your above remarks I have no idea what on Earth you could possible be trying to say with comments like "White Features" You seem to be pushing a certain fringe POV, the kind that disturbs the norms of the world to include the exceptional exception. How many people look like Rashida Jones calling themselves black? So it is a Weight issue. why dont you put a picture up there of Wentworth Miller to make a make your POV clear? um?--Inayity (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, yes. I am aware of that. There is no "black race" as a matter of biology. (But nor is there a 'sub-saharan african race.' All of these terms are pseudoscientific.) But there is a black race as a matter of cultural perception, in the United States.

The idea of a lighter skinned African American isn't fringe. Are you seriously claiming that? You are apparently unaware of the diversity of the African American community and the phenomenon of passing. For example, Soledad O'Brien is the host of CNN's "black in America" and has won various awards for work as an African American anchor from the NAACP. Steeletrap (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes we are aware, do you see the picture of Malcolm X, Ali and Obama, could they pass? or is light skin in there case a "White feature"? What you are discussing is so subjective to be lost in any serious discussion. Soledad represents 10% of African Americans who identify as such? Fringe is the idea that just because Rashida today wants to be black we should use her to "represent" some notion of racial diversity. When I was on the Jew I wanted Sammy Davis and could not even get one African in that photo. I digress. --Inayity (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

But people such as O'Brien are accepted as African American in the United States. Rashida Jones is the daughter of Quincy Jones, a black man, and she is free to identify as black. Civil rights hero Augustus F. Hawkins, who looks like an average white person, actually had a black parent and was a member of the Black Caucus. These people exist and always have existed in the African American community. Are they a small minority? Sure. But not as small as you think. And remember: we are talking about (maybe) 1 picture out of twenty, not adding all of these people to the article.

Moreover, light-skinned people of African descent encountered intense discrimination in the US, back when race/heritage was taken seriously as a biological concept rather than merely a proxy for physical appearance. See Plessy v Ferguson, where a 1/8 black person who physically appeared white was nonetheless subject to forcible segregation. Steeletrap (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC) From the article: "Plessy was born a free man and was an "octoroon" (of seven-eighths European descent and one-eighth African descent). However, under Louisiana law, he was classified as black, and thus required to sit in the "colored" car." Steeletrap (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am Jewish and agree with you that a Jew of African descent should be included. Moreover, the number of photos on the Jew page should be expanded. I don't see how that's a 'fringe' issue any more than the one I raise above is. Steeletrap (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well you raise it I will back you up. But The Jewish issue is not the same. Because Sammy and Lenny are Jews, they are also African. You are asking for people with more "White features" *your words not mine* to be included. BTW Light skin is not a White feature. But either way the images on this page for dark people, and light people. people with broad noses, and people with fine noses. Jones and her Black daddy are not needed to balance the image page as Jones is a oddity. Plus is she even notable?--Inayity (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Inayity, it was just a thought. I am sorry you are reacting so negatively to this. As Plessy indicates, lighter-skinned mixed people have long faced discrimination, and been considered part of the African American community. I'm headed off of this page for now. Recognizing the sensitivity of this issue, I won't edit in a picture of one of the above-mentioned people unilaterally. But I hope you reconsider your position. Steeletrap (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

African people are under a lot of stress. Excuse me if i come off off-key, but it is a battleground. I hope you reconsider Getting some Black folk up on that Jewish page. Cuz the All White crowd does not represent the religion. Imagine if we had Islam and only Arabs?--Inayity (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I support more racial diversity in the Jewish page. I will post to that talk page later. There also should be some Jews who are of Middle Eastern descent (e.g. Mizrahi Jews), rather than the mostly-European ("white", as you say) Ashkenazi Jews. In return, I hope that you will reconsider your views on whether 1) the definition should be sub-Saharan African rather than black African and 2) whether one lighter skinned person belongs in the pictures on the African American page. I'm not asking you to change your mind; just reconsider. Steeletrap (talk) 20:45, 23

Not that I support including pictures based on how "white" or "black" a person looks, but if such a thing were to be considered, then I'd rather it be about an African-American that did something groundbreaking or important like Dr. Charles Richard Drew. Not only is he of greater historical importance in the field of medicine but based on your concerns, can easily be mischaracterized as a Caucasian.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The Chuck Berry picture is currently listed in African_American#In_literature_and_academia. Should we move it to African_American#In_music and add a new picture for lit and academia? There doesn't seem to be enough room, but there is 2 pictures for the music section and none for lit and academia. Would it be good to either expand the music section or take out (or move to elsewhere in the article) one of the pictures? --Padenton (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The African_American#In_literature_and_academia section (under the African_American#Cultural_influence_in_the_United_States heading is currently mostly filled with inventors. Are inventors really appropriate for this section, or should this section be moved elsewhere? I'm not really sure if cultural influence would be the best way to include inventors, also whether it would belong under the heading of 'In literature and academia'. Maybe make a new top-level section for notable people of sorts. The Asian American article has a top-level section for 'Notable contributions', maybe we could add a similar section, move the cultural influence section from 'contemporary issues' which also doesn't really feel like it fits. I'd be happy to do the work, just wanted to run it by people.

That was a bit too train of thought...My proposal in summary: We move African_American#Cultural_influence_in_the_United_States from African_American#Contemporary_issues to a new top-level section called 'Notable Contributions' or something along those lines. Split 'In literature and academia' into 2 sections, 'Literature' and 'Inventors' (or 'Science and Technology'). The new top-level section should have a section on 'cultural influences', where we can put subsections on music, culinary arts, maybe put literature in here as well. I'm sure there are other sections we could put under this heading also. Thoughts?--Padenton (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Haplogroup I occurs only in Scandinavia, Balkans, north-central Europe. , I conclude that the content about genetics (in that field) is a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.9.143.181 (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This information that I added to the article was deleted:

• Studies done by companies such as 23andme, Ancestry.com, Family Tree DNA, AfricanDNA, and National Geographic reveal the overall ancestry of African Americans to be around 65-80% African (primarily West/Central African), 19-29% European (primarily British and Irish), and 0.6-2% Native American.^[1] The overwhelming majority of African Americans have some European ancestry, but according to DNA analysis African Americans only have a small amount of Native American ancestry.^[2]

The studies done by 23andme in these articles and referenced by Henry Louis Gates were done by Kasia Bryc, the same woman who is referenced in the following citation:

• According to an autosomal DNA study by Bryc et al. (2009), the overall ancestry of African Americans was formed through historic admixture between West/Central Africans (mainly females) and Europeans (mainly males). Consequently, African Americans have a genome-wide average of 78.1% West African ancestry and 18.5% European ancestry, with very large variation among individuals. The West African ancestral component in African Americans is also primarily affiliated with speakers from the non-Bantu branches of the Niger-Congo (Niger-Kordofanian) family.^[3].

I was told that as commercial testing companies, these are unreliable sources, but the source listed above (which is found in this page under Autosomal DNA) obtained its research through a commercial testing company---Affymetrix. These DNA analysis are not unreliable; they are all derived from commercial testing companies; 23andme is generally accurate in terms of DNA (not necessarly their health/genetic disease predisposition statements obviously). Kinfoll1993 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Commercial testing companies are indeed generally not reliable. This is because their genetic research is not subject to vetting by professionals, unlike genetic studies published in peer-reviewed journals. This is also because these commercial testing firms have a potential monetary conflict of interest. Many of them, such as DNA Consultants, routinely publish nonsense (e.g. that Elvis is alive, based on DNA analysis [10]). At any rate, medical matters are subject to a high standard; please see WP:MEDRS. Middayexpress (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have another source which was taken by Oxford University, and not published by commercial companies which I have just added. This is published online and was done for research rather than profit. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's ok. Middayexpress (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice work guys. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to know what other editors think about the inclusion of other groups in the infobox, such as adding groups "British Americans (English Americans, Scottish Americans, Scots-Irish Americans, Welsh Americans)" to the related ethnic groups section, b/c the article and the citations given here (such as one study in the autosomal DNA section) points specifically to United Kingdom dna being the most prevalent European ancestry of Black Americans-and also the predominant groups that settled the South, where most Black Americans reside. The categories "American people of Yoruba descent" or "People of Yoruba descent" being added would reflect the information in the article about the specific African roots of AA. Also, would the category "People of European descent" (per the several autosomal studies and the statements of Gates and copious others) be appropriate, or would it be inappropriate b/c it would be exclusive of many recent African immigrants? I want to ask for consensus before making any such changes to the infobox or categories section. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The Yoruba category would be inappropriate because not all African Americans necessarily have Yoruba ancestry (though most apparently do), and because African Americans have multiple ancestries besides West/Central African ancestry, including Northwest European ancestry and some Native American ancestry. Regarding the infobox parameter, per Template:Infobox ethnic group, it is reserved for "list of other ethnic groups related to the group", such as "Other Iranian peoples" for Tajiks. Afro-American peoples of the Americas would thus go there. Middayexpress (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean other ethnic groups related to the predominant ancestry? So, in other words, an English American or Irish American would not have "Scandinavian American" in the infobox with other related groups b/c their predominant ancestry is British Isles ancestry, even though they typically derive some ancestry from Scandinavians? Kinfoll1993 (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Besides Afro-American peoples of the Americas, other ethnic groups related to the group here would be groups like Foreign-born Afro-Americans, Sierra Leone Creole people and Americo-Liberians. Middayexpress (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, but I am asking specifically for the reason why British American would not work if as we've stated above, the vast majority of AA have NW Europe ancestry, primarily from the UK. What I'm trying to discern is why specifically it wouldn't be a related group. In the infobox, we have Afro Latin Americans and Black Hispanic and Latino Americans as related groups. Perhaps I'm not asking clearly, but what I'm trying to get at is that, for example, these two groups I just mentioned (AfroLA & BlackH&LA) clearly have different ancestry from AA because they have Southern European ancestry (whereas AA have NW Europe ancestry) and a much higher amount of Native American ancestry than AA. Yet, these groups are listed as a related ethnic group because they have some of the same ancestry (West/Central African ancestry). So in the same way, wouldn't British American be a similar ethnic group because although AA have different ancestry (with the NA and West African components), AA still derive much of their ancestry from British (as seen by the predominant English, Northern Irish, and Scottish immigrants that settled the South). So AA are genetically related to British Americans. Therefore, why would it not be a related ethnic group? Is it specifically because the related groups have to share predominant (African in this case) ancestry?

Also, would "People of European descent" not work as a category for the same reason that you believe "People of Yoruba descent" won't work (that although most AA have European ancestry, not all do), so it would thus be inappropriate? Kinfoll1993 (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yoruba ancestry is already implicit within the "African American" parent categorization; European ancestry and Native American ancestry are as well now. Per Template:Infobox ethnic group, the infobox parameter is earmarked for the most closely related groups. For Tajiks, the example provided therein, this would be "other Iranian peoples". The corollary of that for African Americans is Afro-American peoples of the Americas, among whom are Afro-Latin Americans. Other ethnic groups most closely related to the group here would be Foreign-born Afro-Americans, Sierra Leone Creole people and Americo-Liberians. Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I see. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ragland, James (14 April 2015). "Black immigrants may change the way we talk about black America". Dallas Morning News.
Take from it what you will about the changing demographics of African Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the most appropriate place I could find to ask this but I know it's not the right place. I'm interested to know if Wikipedia should be using 'African American' or 'black' in articles to describe black people. African American seems unnecessarily PC in many cases. Where would I go to find out or discuss this? Thanks. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion it will depend on context, sources, etc, and should not be either/or. African-american is more precise, black is shorter. Sometimes one is preferrable, sometimes they can be pretty much equally so. See for instance African-American history. It uses both, probably depending on source, topic, and preference of the editor who wrote the text. Trying to exclude one in favor of the other is unlikely to be beneficial. In many cases, it won´t matter very much (don´t call black people in Africa african-americans though). Use your best judgement, and discuss as necessary on whatever talkpage the choice of words becomes an issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BLP's is where I typically see it. For instance Colin Kaepernick is described as having a 'white mother' and an 'African American father.' In places like that, it feels like 'black' would be better. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment:Funny how African American is considered excessively PC. I wonder which other ethnic groups are called a name based on an inaccurate color of their skin. What does black tell you about the person? Where do these blacks come from historically? Clearly the more accurate term, is African + Nationality. and more respectful --Inayity (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There should be some mention when referring to the participation of African-Americans in the American Revolution, that the first patriot to give his life, was a black man--Crispus Attucks.

Busslynns (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Teri L Malone

The section of the article titled "Slavery era" not only mentions Attucks but includes his portrait as well. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The pictures in the infobox needs to be cut down by at least half. Why in the World are there 35 pictures there? If we are going to have 5 pictures per row, I suggest we have at most 4 rows. My preference is this:

Frederick Douglass	Harriet Tubman	Booker T. Washington	Martin Luther King, Jr.	Rosa Parks
Hiram Rhodes Revels	Thurgood Marshall	Muhammad Ali	Clarence Thomas	Barack Obama
Jackie Robinson	Maya Angelou	Oprah Winfrey	Condoleezza Rice	Ben Carson
Denzel Washington	Chuck Berry	Mariah Carrey	Serena Williams	Whoopi Goldberg

Dave Dial (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not so hot on Ben Carson there. How about we replace Carson with Edward Brooke, the first African-American elected to the U.S. senate. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm ok with that, although I was trying to mix the first wave of civil rights leaders with the second, and then add in the more modern people. I thought Carson might represent a minority segment, although that can be represented by Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice. Dave Dial (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah I think Rice is better than Thomas. And Brooke has left a mark of African American milestones. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Some of these were. Slavery, reconstruction, development of the African-American community, participation in the great military conflicts of the United States, racial segregation, and the Civil Rights Movement."

There should be no colon after "were". Could someone fix this?

You mean there should be *a* colon after "were", correct? I'm on it, if still pertinent. ==Mic Morose

Can someone also change all instances of African slaves to enslaved Africans? There is a connotation there. Slavery was a condition forced upon them, not a job occupation.

*{{Cite book |last= Kilson |first= Martin |year= 2014 |title= Transformation of the African American Intelligentsia, 1880–2012 |location= Cambridge, MA |publisher= [[Harvard University Press]] |isbn= 978-0-674-28354-1 }}

The very last paragraph expands on pronunciation in Spanish and Portuguese: "In Latin America, negro, which translates as black is the term generally used to refer and describe black people and, similarly to mulatto, it is not considered offensive at all in these regions. However, it is pronounced differently, with the e (a mid front unrounded vowel in American Spanish: [ˈneɣɾo], and a close-mid front unrounded vowel in Brazilian Portuguese: [ˈneɡɾu]) being closer to a sound that it is intermediate between phonemes found in English words such as pay and egg (in Spanish) or day, city and item (in Portuguese)." It fails to mention, however, that in Spanish the -g- is also pronounced differently, although this is indirectly indicated in the IPA rendering ([ˈne'ɣɾo]).

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Viola Davis#WP:Citation overkill in the lead; also see the section started immediately below that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

As seen here and here, I reverted X4n6 twice, and X4n6 reverted me twice, with regard to images being added to the infobox. In my opinion, X4n6 has cluttered the infobox with a lot of unnecessary images. X4n6 has cited WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE for doing so. WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE does not justify such an edit in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Flyer22 engaged in a lengthy, nonsensical "debate" on the Viola Davis talk. Then when I refused to continue feeding the troll there - and said as much - she attempt to retaliate by hounding my edits on this article here and here and here. As for WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, it speaks for itself and needs no defense from me.X4n6 (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We are not having all those images in the infobox. Before you even added the amount to 60, there was discussion to lower the amount from 35 to 20. We definitely are not having 60 freaking pictures there. If one wants to exchange one of the current images with a different person, use Talk page from now on. Dave Dial (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to think I should tune out anything X4n6 states. Flyer22 (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, take note that I made this edit before reverting X4n6 at the Viola Davis article; both articles are on my WP:Watchlist. And my prior edit history at the African American article is seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to intervene in your argument, but I have to point something. If these additional people are notable enough for an infobox, shouldn't they also be mentioned in the text sections? Dimadick (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"Believed to be inferior to white people, they were treated as second-class citizens." This is a lazy and meaningless sentence. Black slaves were not citizens of any class. They were legally slaves and were treated as slaves. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Some such as Maulana Karenga and Owen Alik Shahadah argue African-American is more appropriate, because it accurately articulates geography and historical origin. Thus linking a people to a continent as opposed to an abstract color Both Karenga and Shahadah (who are contemporaries and associates) hold this opinion. The statement is important to this article.--Inayity (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A discussion thread about the reliability and notability of Shahadah and his pages is taking place at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I restored this article, got rid of the most obvious copyright infringement and began to fix the references. This article needs more work and I'd welcome any help to get it in Wikipedia shape. I think there is much that can be preserved here but the overly promotional language has to go. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I know "Afro-American" (vs. "African-American") has largely fallen out of use; I wanted to cite for it having been current as recently as the mid-1980s, but I don't see an appropriate place in the article to place such a footnote. Anyway, if someone sees a place to put it, that's the usage by Cornel West throughout his essay "The Paradox of Afro-American Rebellion", p.44-58 in The 60s Without Apology (1985, edited by Sohnya Sayres, Anders Stephanson, Stanley Aronowitz, Fredric Jameson), University of Minnesota Press, ISBN 0-8166-1337-0. - Jmabel | Talk 19:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)